Mr. Michael Meacher, supported by Mr. Tim Yeo, Norman Baker, Mr. John Gummer, Robert Key, Vera Baird, Joan Ruddock, Ms Emily Thornberry, Tony Lloyd, Andrew George, Mr. Martin Horwood, and Mr. Mike Weir, presented a Bill to combat climate change by setting annual targets for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions until 2050; to place duties on the Prime Minister regarding the reporting on and achievement of those targets; to specify procedures to be followed if the targets are not met; to specify certain functions of and provide certain powers to Members of Parliament with regard to ensuring carbon dioxide emissions are reduced; to set sectoral reduction targets and targets for energy efficiency, the generation of energy from renewable sources, combined heat and power and microgeneration; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March 2006, and to be printed. [Bill 43].

Geoff Hoon: I am not sure about my hon. Friend's last proposition, but the emoluments are pensionable and will continue to be pensionable so long as they are in payment. I am not sure that I entirely take his last point, but his basic proposition is correct.
	The motion provides for a tiered structure: those who have served for five years or more, irrespective of any breaks in service, will be eligible for an additional payment of £13,107, the same amount that applies to Select Committee pay. Those who have served for at least three years but less than five will qualify for an additional £9,960. Those who have served for at least one year but less than three will qualify for an additional £7,340, and those in their first years will qualify for £2,615. Those amounts will be uprated annually in line with Members' pay. The pay will be pensionable, and the necessary regulations will be introduced as soon as possible. The overall cost of the proposal, which is estimated to be some £400,000 a year including national insurance and pensions contributions, will depend on the experience of the panel at any given time.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has tabled an amendment that would provide an alternative grading structure. Amendment (b) provides for a two-tier structure, with half pay for those with less than two years' service. The appropriate system is a matter for the House to decide, but the amendment would obviously increase the overall cost.
	The SSRB recommended that the question of Chairmen's interests and payment for outside activities should be considered before payment is introduced. I hope that the Standards and Privileges Committee is willing to consider that issue and to produce guidance, as it did for Select Committee Chairmen, and an implementation date of 1 November has therefore been proposed with that in mind.
	Whether to introduce pay for Standing Committee Chairmen in the form proposed is a matter for the House to decide. Some hon. Members may feel that service on the Panel is honour enough or that it is wrong to reward some aspects of an hon. Member's work and not others. As I have said, however, I believe that it is right to recognise the considerable commitment made by Standing Committee Chairmen, which involves not only time in the Chair, but time for preparation and the requirement to keep available time that may not be required. Chairmanship offers little in terms of public profile—indeed, it requires hon. Members to stay quiet on Bills that they Chair. I hope that hon. Members agree that that contribution should be recognised—

David Heath: I have the greatest esteem for the hon. Gentleman, who was my Chairman when I served on the Science and Technology Committee, and who I presume is alluding to what the Leader of the House referred to as the principles of the Labour party. I am certainly not in a position to comment on the principles of the Labour party, other than to say that they appear to take a particularly long time, especially in the case of the Science and Technology Committee, of which he was a distinguished Chairman who took the Committee to a new level of respect for its work.
	As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) suggested, we need to consider again the process of selection. There are innate difficulties in relation to a simple election process, and he would be the first to recognise that. Clearly, if we are to ensure that all parts of the House are represented properly on Select Committees, and that there is not a majoritarian view as to who is the appropriate person to sit on a Committee, safeguards must be built into the process. I accept, however, that a simple process by which it appears that it is the Front Bench, or worse, solely the Whips, who determine who sits on Committees, for their own advantage in terms of patronage or discipline, is not the way for the House to choose who sits on Select Committees. I hope that we can arrive at a better system.

Eric Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, first, Select Committees should have equal numbers of Government and non-Government Members, and secondly, that after a proper allocation of chairmanships by party according to the numbers in the House, each Committee could then elects its own chairman, given the party distribution and given an equal representation of non-Government Members on Committees? Would that not be a step forward?

Graham Allen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is leading toward the logical conclusion that unless Parliament's own Standing Orders provide for how soon after a general election Select Committees should be created; unless we take control of issues such as the response that the Government are expected to give to departmental Select Committees; unless we, rather than the Government and Opposition Front Benchers, control this process—the hon. Gentleman's own Front Benchers have not exactly covered themselves with glory in this regard in the past few weeks—the Government will always be able to refuse to reply to a report, or to refuse to create Committees that scrutinise the Government themselves. The anachronism is that the Government are the driving force behind setting up Committees that scrutinise the Government themselves, rather its being clearly established in our Standing Orders that Parliament is the driving force—

David Heath: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I shall move on to motion 34, which deals with the Liaison Committee. That Committee has, to some extent, grown like topsy in both size and responsibilities. It has moved a long way from what it did previously—largely sorting out matters at issue between departmental Select Committees and making common representations on behalf of Select Committees. It now has a regular opportunity to scrutinise the work of the Prime Minister and to ask questions. For that reason, it has become an extremely popular Committee.
	It worries me slightly that that has happened, as the Liaison Committee is not necessarily the best vehicle for scrutinising the work of what is effectively, as we move towards a more presidential system, the Prime Minister's Department. I leave it to the House to determine whether that development should be welcomed. Nevertheless, we need a more formal and better way of scrutinising the Prime Minister and holding him to account beyond the opportunities that arise from Prime Minister's questions. As I said, I am not convinced that the Liaison Committee is the best body for doing so, but it is the best that we have at present.
	I shall listen carefully to the arguments for adding the Chairman's Panel to the Liaison Committee, but I have to say that I will need some persuasion that that is appropriate. It is not that I oppose further expansion of the Liaison Committee or that I want to deprive the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), if he were the person suggested, of taking on that role for the Committee. The difficulty lies with whether the Chairman's Panel—we should remember that it comprises the Chairmen of Standing Committees of the House—should take on a political role in the sense of questioning the Prime Minister and taking up political matters with the Executive.
	We must expect impartiality from Members in their role as Chairmen. Of course they have a separate political role as Members of Parliament when they sit in the Chamber and act in their capacity as Back Benchers, but that is different from how they should act as Chairmen selected by the Chairman of Ways of Means to perform a particular function. In that context, they require a degree of impartiality that should be exercised habitually, but might be prejudiced by membership of the Liaison Committee. We need only think of Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker being asked to sit on that Committee and put questions to the Prime Minister to realise that the development should not necessarily be welcomed. Given that Chairmen are, in effect, vicariously representing Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker in their roles, I am not sure that it is appropriate for a person in that capacity to be put in that position—and I am not even sure that the scrutiny role should be given to the Liaison Committee in any case. There are better ways of providing proper scrutiny.
	Finally, I want to deal with the payment of Standing Committee Chairmen. I have been agnostic, at best, on the question of the payment of Chairmen of either Select or Standing Committees. I personally remain to be convinced, though many of my colleagues feel otherwise. I understand the need for a process of career development within the House for those who are neither invited to, nor likely to, take on a governmental role. That applies to members of the Opposition parties as much as to the Government party. If the House takes the view that Select Committee Chairmen should be paid, I understand the argument that there should be payment for the Chairmen of Standing Committees.
	I would like to say how much I value the role of hon. Members who are prepared to take on the chairmanship of Standing Committees of the House. In my role as shadow spokesman on Home Office and Department for Constitutional Affairs matters, I have sat on an inordinate number of delegated legislation Committees over the last few years. I have also represented my party from the Front Bench on many substantial Bills, which have required many hours of Standing Committee time, and I have nothing but admiration for those who sit in the Chair—without the capacity to express their own opinions—keep order and uphold the machinery of parliamentary work.
	I looked carefully at the Senior Salaries Review Board report, but I do not believe that it has got it right. There is a question mark about the two-tier system, which I am not convinced is workable. Having a one-tier system, despite the superficial attraction, does not take into account the difficulties of choosing new Members to sit on the Chairman's Panel and giving them an opportunity to dip their toes in the water to see whether they are suited to that role in respect of their personal aspirations or their performance.
	There is merit in the proposal, which I understand originated from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Chairman of Ways and Means, for a gradated system. I can see the advantage of allowing people in the initial stages to leave the Chairman's Panel in order to take on a Front-Bench role within the party. We can fairly establish that once a Member has been on the Chairman's Panel for a few years, it is unlikely that they would be invited to take on such a role, but there is merit in allowing a certain amount of flow in the initial changes. With the best will in the world, paying a substantial amount of extra money from day one may make it much more difficult to allow that flexibility.
	I am attracted to the proposal put forward by the Leader of the House. It is a matter for a free vote and I have no idea how colleagues feel on what is essentially a House matter. I shall listen to the arguments, but I am not attracted to a two-tier system because I do not like the idea of having one category of "super Chairmen" and another category of less able Chairmen. That is not the right way to do our business.
	The hon. Member for Thurrock alluded to an important matter: we shall quickly reach the stage at which the only people who do not have some sort of supplement to their pay are troublesome Back Benchers on the Government side and Opposition Front Benchers, who will have to undertake their arduous duties with no consideration of extra emoluments. I say that without any expectation of sympathy, but it seems slightly anomalous that the people who most regularly intervene and question the Executive from both sides of the House are the least well paid for the privilege of doing so. Perhaps we should take pride in that position and accept that our reward lies in heaven.

Nicholas Winterton: I accept that, and a member of the Liaison Committee has no need to take part in the questioning of the Prime Minister if he or she thinks that it is inappropriate to do so. However, I also remind the hon. Gentleman that in the last Parliament, the Liaison Committee produced two excellent reports—as I am sure the right hon. Member for Swansea, West remembers, because he chaired the Committee—on how Parliament could better scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. The reports also addressed the role of Select Committees. That had nothing to do with party politics, and it is important that the Liaison Committee—one of the most powerful Committees, if not the most powerful, in the House of Commons, because it is composed of the Chairmen of all the other Committees—should have a non-party political input into matters relating to the way in which the House undertakes its work. The reports published by the Liaison Committee were very important, but they were not heeded sufficiently by the Government. I hope that in the future such reports will receive better attention and a more sympathetic hearing from the Government of the day.
	I hope that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and other distinguished Members on both sides of the House will receive a little more sympathy from the Deputy Leader of the House than, sadly, it received from the Leader of the House. It offers a constructive way of bringing an element of continuity in the Liaison Committee from one Parliament to another. As the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, work out, there will be many new members of the Liaison committee, so an element of continuity will do no harm. I do not make that point out of any particular preference for myself, but in future the senior Member on the Chairman's Panel could add usefully to the work, knowledge and experience of the Liaison Committee.
	In the main, I warmly support the motions that the Government have tabled today. It is important that the Select Committees be set up, and I was extremely encouraged that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West indicated that the Liaison Committee would meet before we break for the summer recess. That is a fantastic gesture and I hope that it will be taken up and that it will prove possible to hold that meeting.

Eric Forth: Yes, I am always prepared to be taught by Members with superior experience.
	I shall try to rise to the challenge posed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who quite properly asked why amendment (a) to motion 34 suggests that
	"the senior backbench member of the Chairmen's Panel shall also be a member of the Liaison Committee."
	I accept that that would be a departure. However, as has been pointed out several times during the debate, the House is in an evolutionary process. Several hon. Members have identified the Liaison Committee as a developing instrument of the House and there is no doubt that the roles that it has now taken on are radically different from those that it had even a few years ago. Most hon. Members agree that that is a good thing and I am sure that the fact that we are honoured to have the Father of the House chairing the Committee adds greatly to its effectiveness. The fact that the Prime Minister now appears before it is a testament to the enhanced role that it now has.
	Amendment (a) would make a modest yet important addition to the Committee's development. It reflects the different yet vital role that members of the Chairmen's Panel play in the House. Adding the senior Back-Bench member of the Chairmen's Panel to the Liaison Committee, as the amendment would do, would strengthen the Committee in several important ways.
	I shall now attempt to answer directly the question posed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. Members of the Chairmen's Panel have a unique and wide perspective. Anyone who has been on the Chairmen's Panel for a considerable time—the person identified in the amendment—must, by definition, have a lot of wide-ranging experience of chairing a substantial number of Committees considering Bills covering huge areas of policy. Additionally, by dint of being on the Panel, that Member would have considerable experience of procedure and many other aspects of the work of the House. Such experience would add to the effectiveness of the Liaison Committee in its deliberations and its questioning of the Prime Minister.
	There need be no great fear that this particular member of the Chairmen's Panel would compromise his or her impartiality by playing a political role with a different hat on. After all, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, we all have to make that distinction from time to time in our different ways, not least the members of the Chairmen's Panel, who are able—effectively, I hope—to chair Committees with complete impartiality, yet still play a role in the Chamber and elsewhere as politicians. The amendment would be a modest but important step in further enhancing the role and effectiveness of the Liaison Committee, and it is in that spirit that I and the other signatories wish to move it at the appropriate time.
	Moving on to my second amendment, I should first make a declaration of non-interest. I am in the fortunate position of already being the Chairman of a Select Committee and therefore in receipt of the established payments to that chairmanship, which disqualifies me from payment as a member of the Chairmen's Panel. I therefore feel free to discuss, without embarrassment, the matters that I am about to embark on, which relate directly to payment of members of the Chairmen's Panel.
	I have always taken the view that we got this the wrong way around. I was always an advocate of payment of the Chairmen's Panel rather than of Select Committee Chairmen, because I took the view that Select Committee Chairmen already had a number of tangible privileges. They have a public profile and many of them travelled extensively on fact-finding missions, globally and intergalactically. I felt that that was probably reward enough. The members of the Chairmen's Panel, by contrast, do their work silently, surreptitiously and without public recognition, but they do essential work in the service of the House. Having now established the payment to Select Committee Chairmen, however, I believe that it is absolutely right and proper that we now move towards recognising the work of the Chairmen's Panel.
	As I understood it, the argument was about recruitment, retention and recognition of what the Panel does. In that regard, I wish that my other amendment, which sadly was not selected, was before the House, because it proposed that members of the Chairmen's Panel go straight on to the full rate of pay. As I suggested in an intervention, I am not aware of any other position, in government or in the House, where a probationary period has to be served. We do not ask Select Committee Chairman to serve on part pay before they are fully paid; nor do we ask Ministers to do that. Indeed, if I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and your colleagues did not have to serve a probationary period before you got your well merited rate of pay.
	Suddenly we are moving into new territory. The argument, as I understand it, is that some measure of the effectiveness of the new Panel members has to be made before they can go on to the full rate of pay. I am not sure about the merits of that argument, but even if we accept that, I am afraid that the motion before us is a complete dog's dinner. The graduations suggested here are almost incomprehensible and would fail almost completely to meet the tests of recruitment, retention and recognition by their very definition. That is why the amendment in my name, which, happily, has been selected, recognises the probationary element—which I am reluctant to do, but inevitably, I think, have to—but makes it much simpler, cleaner and neater.
	The amendment simply says that if appointed to the Panel, one would get half-pay for two years, when a judgment would be made as to one's suitability. If one was not cutting the mustard, as they say, one would be quietly dropped—sacked, dismissed or whatever. If it was deemed appropriate for one to continue in that service, one would go on to the full rate of pay. That neatly provides fairness, effectiveness and, as it is not unduly complicated, comprehensibility. I hope that the amendment will have widespread support. I am happy that recognition is being made of the important role played by the Chairmen's Panel, but I do not think that the original wording fits the purpose, and I hope that I have persuaded Members that my simple solution is in order.
	I am conscious that other Members want to speak, so I shall wind up my remarks by saying a brief word about the nature of Select Committees, a subject that has been touched on several times—just to get my view on the record, for what it is worth. To make Select Committees more effective we should consider having equal numbers of Government and non-Government Members on them. That would be a major step in the right direction. Although I concede that it is proper that chairmanships to this or that Committee be allocated on a party basis, after that the Committee members should be able to elect their own Chairman from among their membership.
	That would go a long way to meeting the objections that many Members, such as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), have expressed, while retaining some proper party balance across the chairmanships. I would like to think that such things will be looked at further following our deliberations, and I hope that progress will be made in that direction.

Gordon Prentice: I did not make my point as clear as I should have done. When the Public Administration Committee summoned Alastair Campbell, he had ceased to be a special adviser at No. 10—I was going to say he had left the Government. That is an important point.
	It is very important that all political parties lodge in the Library of the House a memorandum setting out their procedures for appointing their party members to Select Committees. I would like the Labour party to do that, as I would the Liberal Democrats the Conservatives and all the parties. I have suggested it before. When I was on the executive committee of the parliamentary Labour party, which is elected by all Labour MPs, I was constantly struck by how difficult it was to change the lists that came from the Chief Whip. A strange alchemy was used.

Gordon Prentice: I shall come on to that. If the parliamentary committee suggested any changes, we were told, "You have to watch the gender balance, which new Labour cares about." We were told that there was a regional balance or an experience balance to maintain; there was a balance between new Members and old Members, and so on. The situation was very difficult indeed.
	People who had been sacked from the Government could move seamlessly to the chairmanship of Select Committees. That was not acceptable then, and it is even more unacceptable now, given that Select Committee Chairmen will be paid an additional £13,100. The situation has changed, because the new parliamentary committee elected by the PLP only a few weeks ago has asserted itself and said that no Minister who has just been sacked or who has just left the Government can transfer seamlessly to the chairmanship of a Select Committee that is monitoring their erstwhile Department. We all welcome that change by the PLP.
	In most cases, Select Committee membership will increase from 11 to 14, which is too big. I think that 11 is good enough. However, we should do something about Select Committee members who do not turn up to meetings or contribute in any way. Given that some Members who would like to serve on Select Committees are unable to do so, that grieves me. Some Labour Members serve on two Select Committees—for example, a Departmental Committee and a House Committee. Some even serve on three Committees. I hope that we will revisit that problem after six or 12 months, once the new Members have found their feet and have woken up to the fact that Select Committee membership lasts for the entire four or five-year Parliament. People who serve on more than one Select Committee should be invited to stand down in favour of colleagues who do not serve on any.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who suggested that the rules on term limits were opaque. It is an incontestable fact that there are regular changes to the machinery of government. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was introduced for goodness' sake, and the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee brought together responsibilities for the environment and for agriculture. Who knows, in the course of this Parliament there may be changes in the Home Office, with justice responsibilities being hived off. Reconfigurations of Whitehall Departments feed through to Select Committees. As I have made clear, a new Select Committee is formed, but the original Chairman can continue to serve.
	Finally, on the business of additional salaries, I voted against the extra money for Chairs of Select Committees, but the proposal remains. As my Friend the Member for Thurrock said, function creep is taking place. It was only a matter of time before the members of the Chairmen's Panel clamoured for recognition, and I daresay that the proposal will be agreed. It is wrong, however, to introduce gradations that are supposed to reflect experience and the fact that some members are more distinguished than others. We do not need incremental salary scales. Like the old public service trade unions in the 1960s, we are introducing incremental salary scales to reflect length of service in the House. That is wrong, and I shall join my Friend the Member for Thurrock in the Lobby to vote against the proposal.
	Finally, I have always believed that the real Stakhanovites on the Chairmen's Panel would sit through Committees that last for weeks and months, keeping everyone in order—[Interruption.] Is it not like that? The scales fell from my eyes when my good Fiend the then Member for Burnley, Peter Pike, who has now left this place, told me that he had frantic calls to chair the Committee considering the Hunting Bill. He was told that if he did not chair it, the Bill would fall because there was no one else available from the Chairmen's Panel to chair that sitting. He realised that if he chaired the Committee, he would lose the right to vote on the Hunting Bill when it came back to the Floor of the House of Commons. Peter Pike feels as strongly as I do on the issue, but because he had been approached and the situation had been explained to him, he put his views to one side and chaired the Committee.
	It is a little sad that we have to pay the Chairmen's Panel up to £13,000 to coax individuals to chair Committees. That is what is behind the proposal. The Peter Pikes of previous Parliaments are no longer available, so we have to pay people to take on the responsibility. That is unfortunate. We are creating different classes of Members and we do not need that.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I must apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, because my presence has been required on the Committee that is considering regulations to do with the Water Act 2003. My Whips informed me that it was a three-line Whip, and in case I had difficulty in recognising three lines on a piece of paper they carefully wrote it in words as well. I apologise to the House for my apparent discourtesy in nipping in and out during the speeches.
	Select Committees of this House have proved themselves, not only in the last Parliament but in previous Parliaments, to be a tremendous advance because they have the time and opportunity to scrutinise Government Ministers. Competent Ministers have no difficulty in dealing with Select Committees as long as they know their own subject, because they are prepared to engage in the sort of exchange that good scrutiny encompasses by explaining their policies and where they want to go with them and being prepared to take on difficult arguments. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Transport, who is not only happy to come and talk to us about the things that he wants to do but prepared to defend them. I will not say that he always takes notice of everything that my Committee says—would that he did—but he is extremely careful to engage it in discussing the detailed work of Government. What more can one ask of any Secretary of State? Some Ministers are capable not only of benefiting from the system of Select Committees but of producing positive results.
	However, I voted against paying Chairmen for a simple reason. Any Government, offered the opportunity to exercise patronage, in whatever form, will take that opportunity. It is not particularly surprising that when politicians are offered a weapon they use it, and in my experience they do so consistently.
	There are one or two things that the House of Commons should be very clear about. It is not acceptable for a Minister to leave Government and instantly move over to become the Chairman of a Select Committee, because what they are doing, in effect, is giving a verdict on the work that they have just performed, which inevitably means that, whatever their instincts, they will not come up with the degree of perception that is necessary for them to be a good Chairman. It is essential that we in this House insist that the—always unwritten but very clear—rule that chairmanships go to Back-Bench Members is supported in every conceivable way.

John Bercow: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I do not know whether the sensation has afflicted other right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon, but the infuriating thing for me is that we have been here before. This afternoon, I feel as though we are playing a very long-running tape all over again. To put it another way, I have the sensation that I am once again, after a gap of about 15 years, reading that magnificent novel by Kafka—"The Trial", in which K is treated appallingly by the bureaucracy and goes round in circles. There is also his other magnificent tome, "The Castle", in which the hero thinks that he is advancing closer and closer to it, but on every step towards it that he takes, he discovers that he is step further away than he was before. Well, I have that sensation, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the composition of Select Committees.
	We have had these debates before. As long ago as July 2001, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was then the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), who was then shadow Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who was not then but is now the Father of the House, all argued that the process needed decisive reform, and needed it then. Four years later, that has not happened and there appears to be no enthusiasm among those on the Front Benches for it. What is even more depressing is that there is insufficient enthusiasm for reform on the Back Benches on both sides of the House. That is what is urgently needed.

Mark Fisher: It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who is a truly independent-minded Member. I am not sure whether to rejoice with him in his membership of a Select Committee, which, I hope, we are about to endorse in a few minutes, or to commiserate with him about the fact that he has been gagged by his Whips from displaying his independence on an even wider platform.

Mark Fisher: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I wholly agree with him on that. That will be burden of my remarks, which I hope will be brief to give other hon. Members the opportunity to speak. I had not realised that the debate was time limited, and I will endeavour to be very brief.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham had an interesting exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the relative relevance to the debate of Lewis Carroll and Franz Kafka. Although it was amusing and enjoyable to hear their literary expertise displayed, both of them were right to suggest that both those authors' books show a nightmare vision of a world turned upside down. That is what we are seeing in the House at the moment.
	As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, we are fast becoming a House that rubber-stamps political parties. It is hardly surprising that the public have less and less respect for the House and, indeed, for politics generally when the idea of independent parliamentarians is in such decline. That is what the debate is about, and it is why analogies to the bleak and serious vision of the world of both Lewis Carroll and Franz Kafka are very good to draw.
	Given the shortage of time, I will not go into the details of the debate—the method of selection for membership, the pay of Chairmen and so on—important though they are. They are emblematic of a number of issues, and it has been a good, interesting and experienced debate on them. The Father of the House put the whole issue in a wider context in his contribution about the importance of Select Committees; their role in scrutiny, as the hon. Member for Buckingham has said; and, crucially, their independence. That is what we should be debating, and we have been doing so this afternoon.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said in a characteristic, intelligent, very gentle and courteous speech that his criteria for determining whether this dispensation of Select Committees has achieved greater independence was that there are no ex-Ministers, where it has succeeded; that minor parties should be well represented, where it has also succeeded, and that the awkward squad on both sides of the House should be represented. He cited my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who is certainly a fully paid-up member of the awkward squad, but he did not mention my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who has made a particular and professional contribution to our debates on science and technology, as most hon. Members realise, yet amazingly is not among those selected. It might be said that this dispensation is a marginal improvement on previous dispensations of Select Committees members, but the fact of the matter is that the thumbprints of the Front Benches are as evident as they have ever been, albeit in a marginally different way.
	Much as I respect the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, he should have set tougher criteria to judge whether the way in which the Select Committees were chosen was truly independent. We should not judge the independence of individual hon. Members, but whether this generation of Select Committees will be fearlessly independent of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly said that one way in way such independence could be indicated would be if Committees were able to choose their own Chairs. She chided me for what I suggest was calculated naivety, but Committee members do have such a power in their grasp. On the first day that the Committees meet, their members can choose their own Chairs. I doubt whether they will do that, but they should. If they do not, they must recognise that they are simply being directed by their Front Benches.
	Why should the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee be a member of the Government? It is outrageous for any Committee that is set up to scrutinise the Government independently to have any Government Ministers on it, let alone the Committee that discusses the whole future of the Chamber and the House. That has nothing to do with the Government because this is our House. The Executive have their own role and function in our constitution, but it is not running the business of the House.
	We should have more Joint Committees with the other place, although only one is being selected today. Both the other place and this House are set up to scrutinise the Government. We have complementary roles and interests, so Joint Committees are an important part of the process. Too often Members of our House and the other place see themselves as being in competition, but that is wholly in the interest of the Executive because it gives them an easy time. Scrutiny of the Government should be parliamentary scrutiny—not scrutiny by the Commons or the Lords, but by Parliament. When we scrutinise the actions of the Executive, it is in the interests of rigour and the good name of Parliament to work together.
	The most crucial criterion that should be used to judge the independence of Select Committees is the fundamental question of who runs the business of the House. That will not be determined by the Select Committees, so we should have a business Committee, as the Scottish Parliament does. The Government should of course be represented on such a Committee because they have an absolute right to the time that they need to get through the programme for which they have a mandate, but the idea that they should dictate when the House sits, what it debates and when we debate it is absolute nonsense. That is not the business of the Government. The Government's business is to run the country and to suggest taxation and action programmes, but it is not to run either of the Houses of Parliament. Until we have a business Committee through which we take responsibility for our own business, we will always be ciphers. We understandably lost that ability in the late 19th century due to the astute parliamentary work of Mr. Charles Parnell, but we must regain it if we are to regain our independence.

Mark Fisher: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall just correct myself. I meant to say that Government have the right to the time to try to get their business through. I accept your admonition and I shall draw my remarks to a close so that other hon. Members can contribute.
	It is very sad that there are so few new Members in the House, but it is to the credit of the new Member who is here that he is listening to this debate. We have to decide whether we are parliamentarians or just simply representatives of our political parties. Obviously, we are both. That interesting paradox is inherent in our roles, and it leads to many good conclusions. However, we must remember that we are parliamentarians as well as representatives of our parties.
	During the last Parliament I took place in an extraordinary radio debate with another member of the parliamentary Labour party. That person, when asked by the interviewer whether they were a parliamentarian, was outraged and said, "I am not a parliamentarian; I am a Labour Member of Parliament. I am sent here to vote for the Government, not to think for myself and be a parliamentarian." That Member was outraged by the idea that they should be considered anything other than a Labour Member of Parliament who voted with the Government 100 per cent. of the time. Therein lies our problem.
	Of course Members on both sides of the House want to be loyal to the party of which many of us have been members for 20 or 30 years—or, in my case, over 40—but we are here to scrutinise Government as Members of Parliament as well. If we do not stand up and shake off the shackles of our Front Benches during this Parliament we will lose yet more years and yet more independence. These are very important issues. This Parliament must assert our distinct identity—our role is different from that of the Executive—and we do so particularly through these Select Committees. We will vote these motions through tonight, and I hope that when the Select Committees operate, they bear it in mind that they have a sacred role in the independent, rigorous scrutiny of Government policy.

Mark Harper: I want to make one point, which, given the time that we have left, I hesitate to dwell on. I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on the term limits for Chairmen. As a new Member, I am still not entirely clear on exactly the period that one can serve. We need to clarify when in a Parliament that period starts so that we are clear about the exact time that someone can serve.
	That point highlights another contradiction in a number of the motions: the concept of having term limits for Chairmen and paying members of the Chairmen's panel. On the latter motion, one of the arguments for paying Standing Committee Chairmen was that with time served in the House came experience and wisdom. If that is true, it seems a little foolish artificially to limit the period for which one can serve as a Chairman of a Select Committee, as it would seem that the same argument should apply to the wisdom and experience gained in that role over time.
	The main point that I want to make concerns the importance of scrutiny in the House. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said that it was incredibly important that the House took scrutiny seriously. It is true, I think, and it may be sad—the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that it was disappointing—that Members of the House are not prepared to take on duties and chair Standing Committees. We may have to accept that if the House is to take scrutiny seriously, we need to provide an alternative career structure for Members, one in which they can come into the House and see chairing a Select Committee or Standing Committees and taking part in the business of the House as something that they want to do as a career rather than necessarily wanting to achieve a position in government.
	It may be that, in the past, people were willing to do that without remuneration, but it seems from remarks that I have heard from experienced and distinguished Members that that is less true nowadays. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that it may, sadly, be necessary to pay people to be Committee Chairman to enable sufficient Members of sufficient calibre to take on those tasks and allow scrutiny to take place.
	I will draw my remarks to a close because I would like to allow a couple of minutes in this time-limited debate for my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for the Minister to wind up. I have enjoyed listening to hon. Members, and it is a shame that more new Members were not present to listen to some distinguished speeches.

Nigel Griffiths: It is a particular pleasure to respond to the debate, because it has been both well-informed and broadly good-natured. I know that some mock modernisation in this place, but I was one of the Members who, for the first three months on being elected, did not have a desk or a phone but had a place to hang my sword. Many Members went through that experience, so there have certainly been improvements.
	I welcome the broad support that has been offered to us by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the shadow Leader of the House, and I will cover his points first and then embrace some of the other points made and answer some of the questions that have been put to me.
	The proposal to remunerate Chairmen of Standing Committees has been advocated by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Its report advocated a two-tier panel, with higher payments, but did not find fault with the proposed tiered structure of payments if that was the wish of the House. It agreed with the principle of linking pay to workload, which is why we have done so. Apprenticeships were mentioned disparagingly, and it was said that they did not apply to ministerial positions. In fact, they do—we have junior Ministers and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, Ministers of State and Cabinet Ministers. Those three levels of responsibility are reflected in three different levels of pay.
	The House will wish to examine the code of conduct for Chairmen of Standing Committees, and I hope that the Standards and Privileges Committee has a chance to look at it. In response to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, 1 November has been set as an implementation date, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed that.
	A number of hon. Members raised the proposal that a member of the Chairmen's Panel should serve on the Liaison Committee. That Committee, however, is relatively political. By contrast, the Chairmen of Standing Committees are entirely neutral, as are the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. I am therefore not sure that their involvement in the Liaison Committee is appropriate.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has considerable experience of the House and its procedures, suggested that there is no incompatibility between membership of the Chairmen's Panel and the work of the Liaison Committee, but I do not share that view. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke about the two-term rule, and a number of colleagues asked for clarification. There is consensus that Select Committee Chairmen should serve for no more than two terms. We must, however, look at recent circumstances to understand why the eight-year rule was introduced. A Select Committee Chairman who was appointed in 1970 would serve until the end of the Parliament in 1974. If they were reappointed by the will of the House for the Parliament of February to October 1974, without the eight-year rule, they would then complete their two terms of office. With the rule, however, they would go on to serve for a further four years in the next Parliament until 1978, before handing over to their successor. A number of hon. Members said Select Committee Chairmen should complete their term of office only when a Parliament ended. Previous Speakers have chosen to hand over to their successor before a Parliament ends so that the new Speaker can gain experience in the Chair. Select Committee members—I accept that they are the individuals who are most likely to become Select Committee chairmen—may have distinguished service, but they do not necessarily have experience of chairmanship.
	I shall give another example to demonstrate how far the elastic band of time can stretch. If a Committee Chairman was selected in 1981, two years after the Conservative Government had been elected, they could, if it were the will of the House, serve the full term from 1993 to 1997 and then from 1997 to 2001, making a total of 11 years' service. We therefore hope that the House will agree with the important principle behind our proposals.

Nigel Griffiths: I am sorry that I have not convinced my hon. Friend. I did not think I was struggling to use the example as an argument. The term limitation on Chairmen of Select Committees is designed to stop people, no matter how competent, being appointed almost in perpetuity, or as long as they are Members of the House. That is why we are trying to lay down rules which, I believe, will work to the advantage of the House and are fairly simple and straightforward, but give the flexibility that a common-sense approach would allow.
	Let me move on to some of the other issues that were raised. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell raised the time taken to set up Select Committees and compared that to 2001, but it is not a fair comparison. Since I was appointed Deputy Leader of the House, I have tried to avoid hurtful phrases, so I shall say that the result this time for the hon. Gentleman's party was less disastrous than in 2001. It necessitated at least three changes to the way in which we approached Select Committees. There have been negotiations between the parties on the size of the Select Committees. There have been discussions about which party should seek to have its Members chairing certain Select Committees, and how many Select Committees it is fair for each party to chair. That has been the subject of tough negotiation—
	It being four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business, pursuant to Order [this day].

Ordered,
	That Standing Orders Nos. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting) and 142 (Domestic Committees) be repealed and the following be a Standing Order of the House:
	"Administration Committee
	(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the Administration Committee, to consider the services provided for and by the House and to make recommendations thereon to the House of Commons Commission or to the Speaker. Any such recommendation whose implementation would incur additional expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Administration shall also be considered by the Finance and Services Committee.
	(2) The committee shall make rules and give directions to Officers of the House in respect only of such administrative matters as may from time to time be determined by the Speaker or by the House of Commons Commission.
	(3) The committee shall consist of not more than 16 Members, of whom five shall be a quorum.
	(4) The committee shall have power—
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;
	(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference; and
	(c) to communicate its evidence to the House of Commons Commission.
	(5) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee and to delegate to such sub-committees any of the powers delegated to the committee under paragraph (2) above.
	(6) Any such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time the minutes of their proceedings, and shall have a quorum of three.
	(7) The committee and any sub-committee appointed by it shall have the assistance of the Officers of the House appropriate to the matters under consideration.
	(8) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the Committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of theParliament.".

That Standing Order No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee) be amended
	(a) in line 6, by leaving out from the first 'for' to 'for' in line 7 and inserting'House of Commons: Administration';
	(b) in line 10, by leaving out 'Departments of the House' and inserting 'HouseAdministration'; and
	(c) by leaving out lines 14 to 16 and inserting 'the Administration Committee'.—[Mr. Coaker.]

That Mr David Anderson, Annette Brooke, Ms Katy Clark, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mr David Gauke, Andrew Gwynne, Mr Eric Illsley, Mrs Sian C. James, Mr Greg Knight, Rosemary McKenna, Sir Robert Smith, Mr Rob Wilson and Sir Nicholas Winterton be members of the Procedure Committee.

(Queen's recommendation signified).
	Ordered,
	That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
	(a) with effect from 1st November 2005, the salary of a Member shall be higher by the amount specified in sub-paragraph (b) than the figure determined in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 in respect of any period during which the Member has been nominated by the Speaker to act as a temporary chairman of committees in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Chairmen's Panel) ('a member of the Panel'), other than to the extent that the provisions of sub-paragraph (d) apply;
	(b) for a Member who has served on the Panel for less than one year, the additional amount shall be £2,615; for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least one year but less than three years, the additional amount shall be £7,340; for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least three years and less than five years, the additional amount shall be £9,960; and for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least five years, the additional amount shall be £13,107; and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph length of service shall include membership of the Panel before 1st November 2005 and shall be calculated irrespective of breaks in service;
	(c) a period should begin for the purpose of sub-paragraph (a) on the day on which the Member is appointed to the Panel, or on 1st November 2005, whichever is the later; and end on the day on which the Member ceases to be a member of the Panel;
	(d) there shall be disregarded for the purpose of sub-paragraph (a) any period in respect of which the Member is receiving additional payment as Chairman of a Select Committee;
	(e) the provisions of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 relating to Members' Salaries (No. 2) shall apply, with effect from 1st April 2006, to a salary determined in accordance with subparagraphs (a) and (b) as they apply in relation to a salary determined in accordance with the provisions of that Resolution; and
	(f) the Speaker shall have authority to interpret these provisions.—[Mr. Coaker.]

(Queen's recommendation signified).
	That, with immediate effect, the resolution of the House of 30th October 2003 relating to Pay for Chairman of Select Committees (No. 2) shall be amended in paragraph (1) by leaving out "or the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments" and inserting "the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Administration Committee, the Finance and Services Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Procedure Committee, the Committee of Selection or the Committee on Standards and Privileges".

That Standing Order No. 4 (Chairman's Panel) be amended by leaving out the words ", for every session," in line 1.

Caroline Flint: I will address that point shortly, as I want to clarify the situation for the minority of patients who have agreed with, in most cases, their GP that there is a clinical need to continue with the prescribing of co-proxamol.
	Many local formularies, including in Northern Ireland, have already phased out co-proxamol altogether. It has been on the market for 40 years and it is clear that some patients have been established on this medicine for a long time, so I realise that the action that has been taken must be very distressing. The Department has received many letters from patients who are upset at its withdrawal. I have sympathy them, but I am encouraged by the progress that has already been made in shifting to other forms of pain management. The decision to withdraw co-proxamol from the market has tested medicines regulation to the extreme. However, weighed against the difficulties caused to individual users is the clear public health gain in removing a medicine that has been widely implicated in accidental and non-accidental overdose.
	At the end of the phased withdrawal, and following the cancellation or withdrawal of licences for existing products, provision will remain for the supply of unlicensed preparations. I understand that the drug will continue to be available on a named patient basis, and that the MHRA will communicate that fact clearly. Its doing so should deal with the question of supply, but I will check this point for my hon. Friend and I am happy to write to her about it.
	Individual patient use of co-proxamol preparations could continue, with responsibility for such use falling primarily on the prescriber, who is usually the GP. In this way, where a clinical need exists and alternatives have proved unsuccessful, it will still be possible to prescribe co-proxamol, but in a more targeted way than in the past, and with a stronger focus on the risk-benefit judgment for the particular patient. I hope that that judgment will be reached through a strong relationship between patient and prescriber that establishes the patient's needs and their need to use this drug.

Anne Begg: In making a risk analysis and a public benefit analysis of the withdrawal of co-proxamol, will she also consider the following point, which she will probably be unable to deal with this evening? Those who previously used co-proxamol, and who were active and in work, might lose their job and be unable to work as a result of its withdrawal and their failing to find an equally effective alternative. My constituent's fear is that they will therefore be a burden on the state, instead of contributing to it.

Caroline Flint: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. Yes, we have to weigh up all the different factors. However, the information that I provided earlier this evening about the impact of this particular drug on the number of people who die through either accidental or planned overdose is a very serious issue. I understand that all drugs have risks, but we face huge challenges that cannot be overcome through treatment if someone overdoses by accident. Some people, unfortunately, seek to commit suicide, but they may rethink that option if they have a chance of getting treatment—after being saved, as it were. That raises many questions about co-proxamol. From the evidence that I have seen, the option of having treatment, thereby saving life, is much reduced by the accidental or intentional use of this drug when it leads to an overdose. We have to take all those factors into consideration.
	As I have already said, it is a complex issue that has focused the minds of many people in establishing what is the best thing to do. No one lightly takes removing a drug from the market when it has become part and parcel of how many people, whether they are in or out of work, cope with their daily lives. I referred earlier to an article in Pulse, which made it clear that GPs are engaging with patients in a sensitive way in planning the withdrawal of co-proxamol in favour of alternatives. The fact that there has been a decline, from 438 to 20, in the number of people who cannot deal with any alternative drug shows that progress can be made, although we must be mindful of the minority for whom alternative treatment may not be an option. There is a process that must be gone through but, as I said, GPs or prescribers retain the ability to prescribe co-proxemol.
	I shall write to my hon. Friend about some of the issues that she has raised, and particularly about the question of stocks. Clearly, it is important to determine what the future holds for those people for whom co-proxemol is the only drug that can give them the relief that they need.
	I welcome the opportunity to hold this debate. Sometimes, regulation must balance the preferences of the few with the needs of the many, but that is not to say that we do not take account of the individual requirements that my hon. Friend has expressed so ably. I hope that she and organisations such as Arthritis Care are reassured by my acceptance of the possibility that co-proxemol will continue to be prescribed where there is a clear clinical need because alternative treatments are unsuitable.
	The Government are sensitive to the problem and accept that pain management is a complex matter. We expect health professionals to engage fully with patients on the range of drugs that are available to manage their pain, and we know that patients have considerable interest in complementary and alternative medicines for the management of pain.
	The way forward is to ensure that the relationship between health professionals and patients is developed. It is not good enough for GPs or prescribers to sign off a patient on drugs for many years without any discussion of pain management. The relationship must be a fulsome one: it may change with time, but both patient and prescriber must feel that they have attempted to make the best possible progress.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Seven o'clock.